Re: [mythsoc] Beowulf film

David, if I hadn t met Prof. Foster, I would believe that indeed he doesn t get it. But I *have* met him. Prof. Foster, I am starting to believe that you are

Message 1 of 108
, Sep 3, 2007

0 Attachment

David, if I hadn't met Prof. Foster, I would believe that indeed he doesn't
get it. But I *have* met him.

Prof. Foster, I am starting to believe that you are being deliberately
obtuse. Which is irritating when it comes from my 11-year-old in a discussion
about the homework he doesn't want to do. With someone of your abilities, it's
not irritating but rather kind of . . . sad. You're way too smart for this type
of argument, Prof. Foster. David acknowledges (as do I) that yes, people
read the books because of the movies. And, again, as David pointed out, people
read the books because of Rankin-Bass and the other earlier ham-handed,
laughably terrible animated films. The fact that people are drawn to the books does
NOT by itself, as demonstrated above and explained quite clearly by David
Bratman's emails, excuse the awfulness of Peter Jackson's films. And you know
it.

>
> Very much the opposite opinion here. I don't recall anything harmful being
> done to the text, but the image was definitely a problem. Tolkien says she was
> "beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful." The only word in this
> that Jackson seems to have followed was "terrible" - and he seems to be using
> it in the sense of "scary and terrifying," rather than "eliciting awe" which
> is what Tolkien presumably meant.
>
> Good point David! Beautiful and Terrible like an angel would have been more